110 karma · joined December 9, 2008
Where? By whom? This is certainly not (yet) the general consensus, as I understand it. Are you taking the most optimistic / untethered comments as the strawman against which you feel the need to argue?
So many commenters here see it as their ... duty? to argue against the most optimistic/unhinged (take your pick) arguments from "the other side" and then treat everybody who disagrees as a shill or an idiot.
Why is "being good at chess" a proxy for whatever AGI strawmen you want to argue against?
Maybe step back from your black-and-white ledge and think about discussing what's actually under discussion? For example, why or why not would an LLM be good at chess? Will they be good at chess? What technical limitations might preclude that?
spit take
>> I can't help be hopeful that AI's sheer potential might come to invert that curve. At the very least we could really use a revolutionary technology and now we may have one.
And you get "god" and "(human) salvation" out of that?
This is pure projection. Anti-AI zealots are projecting things onto the technology and its users that simply do not (generally) exist.
Is this the anti-AI crowd's last line of defense?
SIGNS POINT TO YES
Evergreen comment TBH
Can we retire this incorrect meme please
What? So much research is being generated around this topic. Perhaps you are just unfamiliar with it.
AND yes, both companies benefited.
Technology has been augmenting or replacing human work for as long as the first slab of rock was shoved up an inclined plane (wedge) and popped into its spot in the Great Pyramid.